Interpretations #5: Conspiracy Theory Jenny Sat May 30 12:26:22 1998 We like things to be simple. Given a choice between a straight-forward,*br*elegant solution and a convoluted mind-bender, who wouldn't say, "Keep it*br*simple, sweetheart?" Yet simplicity has a price. To simplify a complex*br*situation, you have to ignore evidence, generalize, even stereotype. And*br*that can cause great problems. *p*The conspiracy theories are the direct out-growth (in-growth?) of the*br*social history theories. Social history says that many people benefitted*br*in many ways from the witch trials. Conspiracy theories simplify this: *br*they say that only one group benefitted. They also return to the stark*br*dualism of the early "rationalist" theories, insisting that there are*br*clear-cut Good Guys and Bad Guys.*p*Conspiracy theories reign virtually unchallenged in popular, Neo-Pagan, and*br*feminist descriptions of the Burning Times. In fact, if you've never read*br*an academic text on the Witchcraft trials, you've probably never seen*br*anything *except* a conspiracy theory! There are dozens and dozens of*br*variations. Each theory selects a group of Evil Others (generaly people*br*different from the theorist) and blames everything on them. Some of the*br*more common variations include:*p*The Evil---Christians--- tried to destroy the Good---------Pagans.*br*---"-------Catholics-----------------"---------------------Protestants*br*---"-------Men-----------------------"--------------------Women*br*---"-------Doctors-------------------"---------------------Midwives*br*---"-------Rich people---------------"---------------------Poor People*p*For the most part, conspiracy theories are written for people who don't*br*know a lot about the Burning Times. All of them use a tiny fraction of the*br*evidence and are contradicted by huge quantities of counter-evidence. *br*Therefore if you're a conspiracist, you've *got* to sell your theory to*br*people who aren't familiar with the available data.*p*If you want people to believe that the Evil Christians staged the Burning*br*Times to destroy the Good Pagans, you have to talk to an audience that*br*doesn't know that church courts were the most lenient ones, that the*br*Inquisition was originally prohibitted from trying Witches, etc. If you want people to believe that the Evil Men tried to destroy Women's Power, you can't mention the fact that up to 95% of Witches were men in some countries. If you argue that this was a pogrom aimed at destroying mid-wives, you'll have to turn a blind eye to the fact that being a licensed mid-wife actually decreased a woman's chances of being accused of Witchcraft.*p*Conspiracy theories also tend to be written by people who don't know a lot about the Burning Times. By journalists, by modern Witches who aren't historians, by feminists more interested in politics than history. Academic conspiracists (like Anne Llewellyn Barstow) are almost always from Women's Studies Departments, not history ones. Which means that while they may be experts on political theory, they often know next to nothing about the time period they're discussing. *p*To give you just one example, Barstow says that one of the factors that*br*made the Burning Times so deadly was that Witches stopped being tried by*br*local, community-centered courts (where women had higher standing) and*br*began to be tried by the Inquisition and national courts (which were the*br*tools of the male elites). Now, this shows a *stunning* level of ignorance*br*about early modern courts. National courts killed an average of 30% of the*br*accused, church courts around 1%. Local courts were virtual*br*slaughterhouses -- they frequently killed 90% of all accused. In fact, one*br*of the reasons that Germany's death toll was so dreadful is that its court*br*system was almost entirely local -- the sort of situation that Barstow says*br*was best for Witches! *p*I think that part of the problem comes from the process of simplification*br*itself. To simplify, we need to generalize and stereotype from our data. *br*That's not a big problem when you're dealing with a neutral topic, a topic*br*you don't *start* with stereotypes about. For instance, if you're writing*br*a simplified account of quantum mechanics, it's very unlikely that you have*br*stereotypes about what quantum wave-functions do. But when you simplify*br*history, you walk into a field of land-mines. Because we *do* have*br*stereotypes and preconceived notions about this subject. We *do* have*br*prejudices that will skew our interpretations.*p*Look closely at a conspiracy theory and you'll see something very, very*br*disturbing: the author always blames the horrors on the Evil Other, on*br*someone who is different from themselves. On someone they don't like. *br*Women blame men, Pagans blame Christians, atheists blame the religious,*br*holistic healers blame the male medical establishment. Look closely at a*br*conspiracy theory and you'll find that much of it is stereotyping, pure and*br*simple. The authors say things that appeal to our emotions and prejudices.*p*A few examples will have to suffice. For Anne Llewellyn Barstow,*br*"community-based" is Good, "national" is bad, ergo she incorrectly assumes*br*that community-based courts were better for women. Many Neo-Pagans think that Christians are religious bigots, and so they assume that the*br*Church killed most Witches. Selma Williams believes that Witch-hunting was*br*woman-hunting, so "naturally" female rulers like Queen Elizabeth were much*br*more lenient on Witches. (Not true. Elizabeth, Williams' own example, had*br*the worst record of any English monarch.)*p*This is just bigotry trying to masquerade as reasonable philosophy. For*br*me, that's the scariest part of conspiracy theories: they make prejudice*br*seem so natural, so logical... so *good*. I've met dozens of people who*br*read and loved _Witchcraze_ -- and who were completely oblivious to the*br*breath-taking level of sexism and ethnic stereotyping it contains. *br*Barstow's tone is so reasoned, so rational that many readers overlook the*br*fact that it was about as unbiased as Rush Limbaugh.*p*So if conspiracy theories are so dreadful, why are they so popular?*p*1) They're aimed at a non-specialist audience. The people who read them*br*generally don't know how much evidence the authors are ignoring and what a*br*poor job these theories do of explaining our data. Heck, I'm willing to*br*believe that most of the *authors* don't know how poor their research is! *br*There have only been a couple of cases (like with Anne Llewellyn Barstow)*br*where I've seen an author deliberately conceal evidence she didn't like. *br*(One example -- Barstow claimed that Iceland didn't have a "real" Witch*br*hunt, when in fact it killed more Witches than Ireland, Russia, and*br*Portugal combined -- all countries that Barstow said had "real" trials).*p*2) They're simple. Simplicity is appealing. The weebly social history*br*theories of academia are too vague, too indefinite to be viscerally*br*satisfying. Simplicity is more pleasant and easier to understand. Plus it*br*can even sound more authoritative than real history. Conspiracy buffs are*br*so sure, so confident -- they often sound much more convincing than*br*historians who say, "Well, this seems to be the case here, but remember*br*over there, and then there was that one time when..."*p*3) They're dualistic. Like simplicity, dualism is emotionally satisfying. *br*Popular history constantly reduces the past to battles, to fights between*br*Right and Wrong. The Good Matriarchy was destroyed by the Evil Patriarchy. The Evil Romans enslaved the Good Celts. The Vile Christians forced their*br*religion on Good Pagan Europe. The conspiracy theories of the Burning*br*Times are just another instance of our love of Cowboys 'n' Indians. I*br*don't know what the appeal of dualism is, or why even people like Witches*br*(who swear we're not dualistic) embrace it with such fervor.*p*4) They appeal to our emotions and prejudices. Conspiracy theories*br*encourage us to feel. To personalize the past, to see it as an injustice*br*done to us. To revel in a sense of martyrdom, to meditate on the evils*br*done to "us", to hate the people different from us who so abused "us" in*br*the past. Conspiracy theories are an open call to wallow in self-righteous*br*indignation, to glory in our "victimization", to shower ourselves with*br*self-pity.*p*5) They absolve us. In the end, all conspiracy theories say the same*br*thing: "You're not to blame. The people who did these horrors are not*br*like you and I. Men did it (not us women). Christians did it (not us*br*Pagans). Doctors did it (not us wise-women). We're not to blame -- They*br*are, and gee let's talk about how vile They are for a little while, shall*br*we?"*p*No conspiracy theory has the guts to face the ugliest fact to emerge from*br*our new data: there were no Good Guys. There was no class of people who*br*could say, "I had nothing to do with this. My hands are clean." Even*br*Witches supported and encouraged the trials.*p*